memoryguard_codegraph_query

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly signals that this is a read-only query operation and states an important guarantee: 'Source bodies are never returned.' This is valuable beyond the schema, though it leaves out other behavioral details like result shape or scoping implications.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a meaningful limitation. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and several closely related siblings, this description is too sparse. An agent would not know the query syntax, how workspace and provenance affect results, whether limits apply to matches, or when to choose this over codegraph_explain or codegraph_path.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for the four parameters. It only gives general context ('scoped CodeGraph symbol metadata') and never explains what the 'query' string expects, how 'limit' behaves, what 'workspace' scopes, or the meaning of 'provenance.' The parameter names and enum help slightly, but the description adds little beyond the schema itself.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Query'), a resource ('CodeGraph symbol metadata'), and narrows the scope ('scoped'). It is clear enough to distinguish from codegraph_path, codegraph_affected, or codegraph_status, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it competes with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools such as memoryguard_codegraph_path, memoryguard_codegraph_affected, or memoryguard_codegraph_explain. The word 'scoped' hints at a use context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.